Despite regular attempts by head in the sand AGW cheerleaders to make it go away, Climategate continues to affect the path of climate science. This endorsement of the Climategate effect comes from a most unlikely source, The Guardian’s Fred Pearce, who also writes for The New Scientist. Most telling about all of the investigations so far is that they have not interviewed any of the primary investigators that question the methods and data, such as Steve McIntyre.
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
To summarize: it’s a whitewash in the purest sense of the word. I don’t expect career team player Sir Muir Russell’s report to be any different. He’s too much of an familial insider to have the courage to ask the plaintiff to get involved, and he didn’t. But Steve McIntyre is going anyway. Hopefully they’ll have the courage to hear what he has to say and not lock him out in the hallway. – Anthony
‘Climategate’ was ‘a game-changer’ in science reporting, say climatologists
After the hacked emails scandal scientists became ‘more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties’
Sir Muir Russell’s findings will be published on Wednesday. Photograph: University of Glasgow
Excerpts from the Guardian article:
Science has been changed forever by the so-called “climategate” saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair – and mostly it has been changed for the better.
This Wednesday sees the publication of the Muir Russell report into the conduct of scientists from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails caused a furore in November after they were hacked into and published online.
Critics say the emails reveal evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a cover-up of uncertainties in key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics.
But whatever Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, concludes on these charges, senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by the affair.
“The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer,” said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. “The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance.”
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how “astonishing” it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. “The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all.” He believes that will now happen.
…
“Trust has been damaged,” said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. “People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution.”
The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters”. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.
…
Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that “the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents”.
He added: “Such a strategy will simply exacerbate the pathological politicisation of the climate science community.” In reality, he said, “There is no going back to the pre-November 2009 era.”
…
But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.”
Full story at the Guardian h/t to Tallbloke and WUWT reader Pat
Mike says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@DirkH: So, you want RealClimate to engage in censorship?
—-
REPLY: Mike, I’m actually glad that RC allows that stuff to be put into cyberspace!!
As a scientist practicing for over 25 years (environmental science & biology), I am insulted by this pap:
“It is time scientists realised that they are in a war. There are no rules in love and war. The sceptics know that. So long as they can get away with their lies and false accusations scot-free, then the battle for the future of the planet will be lost.”
Scientists serve humanity, not the other way around. Battle for the future of the planet?? I didn’t know that the climate scientists were arming themselves!
They probably are all changing the batteries in their Star Wars light sabers & putting on their Imperial storm trooper helmets, preparing to battle the sceptics….as the kids say, “LOOOOO-SERS!!”
“Despite regular attempts by head in the sand AGW cheerleaders to make it go away, Climategate continues to affect the path of climate science.”
=====
On the plus side, it will make scientists be more open about their work, and do a better job of documenting.
On the minus side, it will make scientists more guarded in communicating with each other, and could impede the flow of ideas.
On balance, I don’t know where its net gain or a net loss to the advancement of science.
In my last post, the last sentence should be:
On balance, I don’t know whether it’s a net gain or a net loss to the advancement of science.
@ur momisugly Windrider, 11.44am
“Arrrr!”
This is a verbal joke, so please read aloud:
Q: Why are pirates called pirates?
A: Because they just arrrrrrrre!
@woodentop: This is interesting example. Evidence that climate change will likely have serious consequences is presented. It is a 100 page report, so I doubt you have read and digested it. Yet, you know it must be wrong. This is proof that you are not a “skeptic” but rather are in “denial.” Maybe 97% of climatologists and the Nation Academy of Sciences are closer to the truth than a handful of skeptical researchers and scores of bloggers. Try to become open minded.
Note 1: I am not using the word “denial” to inter nefarious motives, rather a fairly normal psychological state.
Note 2: I have not read the Dutch report either. I am making no assumption that it is correct.
Here it is: http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf
“Everything I have seen, including Watts’ site, hopes to embarrass, denigrate and deny governmental agencies and scientists.”
That reminds me of a famous comment by Helen Suzman, the veteran South African anti-apartheid MP, who died last year.
She was once accused by a minister of asking questions in parliament that embarrassed South Africa, to which she replied: “It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa; it is your answers”.
DirkH says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“[…]
[RC comment:]“It is time scientists realised that they are in a war. There are no rules in love and war. The sceptics know that. So long as they can get away with their lies and false accusations scot-free, then the battle for the future of the planet will be lost.””
The number 1 climate science blog of the planet leaves such a post up? My, my, Gavin, what have you become.
_______________________________________________________
Someone who sees his pay check heading south as grants and funding is cut and people are fired.
Robert M says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I like the suggestion of calling the careful side Climate “Reformers,” rather than skeptics or denialists. The desire is fixing climate science, not destroying it. Restoring it to its own better self.
====
I don’t know about that. I’m skeptical of the motives of many who call themselves skeptics.
Geoff Shorten says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“Everything I have seen, including Watts’ site, hopes to embarrass, denigrate and deny governmental agencies and scientists.”
That reminds me of a famous comment by Helen Suzman, the veteran South African anti-apartheid MP, who died last year.
She was once accused by a minister of asking questions in parliament that embarrassed South Africa, to which she replied: “It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa; it is your answers”.
—-
Ha Ha ! Those who disagree with Watts are like proponents of apartheid.
[wren – I find your comment about me and apartheid personally offensive. Take a 24 hour time out from posting – Anthony Watts]
Sounds like we’re in for a new “30 years war”. I think the protestants are right, this time.
From http://www.pbl.nl/en/index.html
5 July 2010
Key findings of IPCC on regional climate-change impacts found to be robust
Oh dear!
Mike says:
“So, you want RealClimate to engage in censorship?”
Mike, that’s projection. The WUWT archives are filled with accounts of people having their polite and on-point comments kept permanently in the RealClimate moderation queue, then disappearing without ever being posted – just because they raised a point questioning AGW orthodoxy. This shows the difference between the heavily censoring RealClimate blog, run by the mendacious Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, and WUWT. People click on sites that allow all points of view. RC has become an echo chamber of true believers, and it censors out CAGW apostates.
BSM says:
“I have just finished reading Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. EXCELLENT.”
Then you will also enjoy A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. As soon as MBH98 was questioned by McIntyre and McKittrick, the very next day the lies started flowing from Mann’s lips and keyboard like water from a fire hydrant. Mann foolishly wrote letters that were provably dishonest. Mann’s supporters had to constantly adjust their defense of him because of his constant prevarication. They couldn’t keep up with Mann’s lies, which Montford documents thoroughly. The book is a page turner.
Michael Mann seems to have been born under a lucky star, and he may never end up testifying in a legal arena, where counsel can call opposing witnesses and cross examine others. But if Mann ever does end up in a real courtroom [as opposed to the absolute whitewash façade contrived by Penn State and the smarmy Muir Russell], then all the lies Mann has already told – many in writing – will zero out his credibility in front of everybody present.
I highly recommend Montford’s book. Anyone reading it will never look at the odious Michael Mann the same way again.
@Katebasis and Doug in Dunedin – yep.
I’ve come to regard the insistence that the data was ‘stolen’ as just an attempt to muddle the waters and confuse the MSM, and by extension, the general public, by raising the sort of ‘questions’ that never seem to really die out.
To anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with computer operations, a few points should be screamingly obvious. Primarily, that this was an inside job at East Anglia CRU, unless the machine and the share involved granted global write permissions (or, in MS NT parlance ‘Everybody Read/Write’) – which it likely did not. Therefore, someone with an account with appropriate permissions a) created the shared folder, and b) wrote the data file to that folder. The list of ‘suspects’ for this action should be relatively short – the staff and students of the facility with such permissions. Further, that the ‘investigation’ into whodunit should in reality have taken about as long as required to access and examine the file and folder meta data, the permissions and user accounts associated with those permissions, and the log files of the server in question. Add another few days for followup interviews with what whould at that point be an EXTREMELY short list of suspects, and to type up and send the report around for bureaucratic box checking purposes, and it should have been wrapped up inside of two weeks. That no determination has been announced indicates either a deliberate disruption of the data files indicated (logs etc) as direct obfuscation, or a phenomenal incompetence on the part of the investigating authorities. Any other explanation involves rather pointless conspiracy theorizing, which really doesn’t seem necessary. That such information was not explored and or reviewed during the Official Reviews is, however, an indication that something was amiss with those proceedings.
To me, it’s the dog that hasn’t barked. And the entire reason I became interested in peeling the onion to take a closer look at the phenomena of “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” was the simple question along the lines of “if they’ve got this nailed seven ways to Sunday, why are they having to lie about it?” This is merely another item on what has become a rather extensive list.
Geoff’s rather self-flattering comparison between the skeptic camp and those who fought apartheid would be funny if it weren’t so painful. One of the most fascinating things about the skeptic camp is the incredible ability to self-aggrandize.
No Geoff, the climate scientists are no embarrassed by their answers. Perhaps the skeptics’ camp should examine a little more closely the embarrassment factor of their own motives and answers – such as the illegal CRU hacker and the emails which showed conclusively nothing.
Sordnay,
Translation of the email you attached:
” We have no idea what we’re doing and no hope of making accurate predictions, so I guess we need to choose the model that most closely represents what people in most countries want to hear. Help!”
How pathetic.
@ur momisugly Latimer Alder at 1:44 pm
You do realize that there have been two recent retractions in UK newspapers – including The Sunday Times of London – regarding charges against climate scientists, right?
REPLY: If you’d bothered to look around, you’d find them here. The Sunday Times retraction appears to be unraveling now. The citations claimed are quite messed up. Most of the retraction issue is bluster/political pressure, not fact. -A
Sordnay,
Translation of the email you attached (1:01pm) :
” We have no idea what we’re doing and no hope of making accurate predictions, so I guess we need to choose the model that most closely represents what people in most countries want to hear. Help!”
How pathetic.
“But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.””
=================
Possibly the greatest understatement of the century 🙂
@ur momisugly Anthony. “The Sunday Times retraction appears to be unraveling now. ”
Really? Couldn’t find independent confirmation of this, my man. You will forgive me in doubting your motives a little bit here – seems like the skeptics’ camp lost out on this one.
REPLY: Well you don’t have too look far, but I suspect you didn’t look at all. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/flaming-the-amazon/
BTW is that email address of yours used to post with valid? Looks fabricated. – A
Zilla says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Geoff’s rather self-flattering comparison between the skeptic camp and those who fought apartheid would be funny if it weren’t so painful. One of the most fascinating things about the skeptic camp is the incredible ability to self-aggrandize.
****************
Self aggrandize, do you mean like getting a Nobel Prize for a seriously flawed book and motion picture ? The “beautiful people” have lined up to be cheerleaders for CAGW and awarded a prize to one of their own.
Or do you mean like turning a mediocre climate scientist like Dr Hansen into a near rock star ?
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm
If you want to read some bizarre/disturbing conversations, visit Realclimate.org and check out some of the comment threads.
Here’s a doozy:
“It is time scientists realised that they are in a war. There are no rules in love and war. The sceptics know that. So long as they can get away with their lies and false accusations scot-free, then the battle for the future of the planet will be lost.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/penn-state-reports/
—————————————————————————————————–
It’s nice to see that the brave and the bold at real climate are still allowing people to contribute to their blog even if they are a tad skeptical. I support them in this 100% I mean just now I made two comments relating Charlie Manson’s friends and Hitler’s staff saying they were innocent so therefore all the buddies over at Penn State that have written with or worked with Mann and are friends with him saying he’s innocent shouldn’t throw any more doubt on his innocence than the mere fact that Hitler’s and Manson’s buddies said they were innocent too. Of course Mann didn’t do anything wrong.
Then I mentioned that Mann bastardizing science and education in one fell swoop should not be anythingto be punished or lose his job for. Both comments are still on realcimate.org and i’m proud of them and their strength.
_____________________________________________________________
Why (stutter stutter) I can’t believe it. My first comment has been removed forthwith in less than 40 seconds, and the second one is still under moderation. I can’t believe that they would remove me just because I’m skeptical. Gosh darn I’m surprised, isn’t everyone else here?
@Mike
“@DirkH: So, you want RealClimate to engage in censorship?”
Are you kidding me?? Every damn skeptical comment to that blog is censored/removed without any explanation. None of my comments ever got through even though it was both on topic and had no offensive content other than the skeptical view.
Yet they accept comments like that one?? It sure shows how biased realclimate is and that they are nothing but hypocrites. At least watts also accept the comments from pro AGW people.
Zilla says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
” Perhaps the skeptics’ camp should examine a little more closely the embarrassment factor of their own motives and answers – such as the illegal CRU hacker and the emails which showed conclusively nothing.”
——
Amazing how the brainwashed warmistas try to tell us this over and over, thinking if they just repeat this mantra, somehow we’ll cringe with embarrassment and see the light. Such a barren and empty defense of the debased status of climate
sciencepropaganda! Unfortunately , Zilla, this “audience” is familiar with the events surrounding the release of the CRUtape letters and the contents of said letters, and many of us have too much familiarity with science and its once-generally accepted ideals to pay any attention to your ridiculous harping that the CRUtape letters contained nothing.Anthony – I also despair at New Scientist – I buy it every week to find out what their world is saying – and I find it disturbing. For example, this week they review Fred Pearce’s book – a whole page is given, by a journalist, who hardly touches on Pearce’s arguments – it is all a defence of the official line and criticism of Pearce for even suggesting that ‘denialists’ might have a point.
Did they review Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’? I don’t think so. They would not review my book either. Nor the CRUtape letters.
Mike Hulme gets better coverage – perhaps because he sits on the fence (and actually, he doesn’t really tackle the science – being a social scientist, albeit a good director of UEA’s climate centre in his time. His book is a valuable read.
I keep trying with New Scientist – they used to publish articles by me – but they would take none of my attempts in relation to solar science and climate – at one point suggesting my writing was ‘too scientific’!
What I realised this week, looking through all of the articles, is that NS is an organ not of science, but of an established order, an ideological grouping that sees the world in a particular way – what I would call ‘scientistic’, and incapable of self-reflection. You might be right – irredeemable!
Geoff Shorten says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“Everything I have seen, including Watts’ site, hopes to embarrass, denigrate and deny governmental agencies and scientists.”
_______________________________________
There are times when I really want to say reap what you sow except I and other innocent people will suffer along with the members of the The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
Attacks on Intelligentsia:
“In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, ….
Bolshevik policy toward its detractors, and particularly toward articulate, intellectual criticism, hardened considerably. Suppression of newspapers, initially described as a temporary measure, became a permanent policy. Lenin considered the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) the center of a conspiracy against Bolshevik rule. In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate.
These harsh measures alienated a large number of the intellectuals who had supported the overthrow of the tsarist order. The suppression of democratic institutions evoked strong protests from academics and artists,who felt betrayed in their idealistic belief that revolution would bring a free society.”
That is just one example. If you and others like you will continue to close your ears to the messages of history you doom all of us to repeat it and I really do not want to live under a totalitarian regime.